Mr. Speaker, Canadian Women in Communications, a national organization supporting the progress of women in the communications and telecommunications industries, recently held their annual awards gala in Ottawa.

Today I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate three individuals who were honoured at this year's gala.

The CWC employer of the year award went to Rogers Broadcasting Limited. The CWC woman of the year is Phyllis Yaffe, president and CEO of Showcase and History Television. Mentor of the year honours went to Suzanne Boyce, senior vice-president of programming at CTV Inc.

Finally, congratulations to Dr. Veena Rawat, Deputy Director General, Spectrum Engineering, Industry Canada, who was awarded the CWC Trailblazer of the year award.

I would like to congratulate the CWC for its exceptional work in advancing the role of women and recognizing these great achievers. Canada's entire communications industry continues to benefit from their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, some fifteen Canadian parliamentarians, including four ministers, shared in the start of Year of the Francophonie with MNAs from Quebec's national assembly.

The purpose of this action was to make people aware that there are francophone legislators from the four corners of Canada. Francophones outside Quebec and Quebeckers share a pride in their language and a desire to preserve it.

These legislators gathered in order to highlight the vitality and richness of French culture and to promote an interest in sharing this linguistic heritage in Canada.

The meeting also provided a forum to discuss the francophone situation in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, once again the Liberals are talking the talk but will not walk the walk.

We all remember that when it came time to help the victims of hep C, the Liberals claimed to care and had widespread backbench support for compassionate assistance to victims. Yet when it came time to turn words into action, all the Liberals bent to the whip and voted against helping all Canadians suffering from this terrible disease.

More recently, when dealing with the child porn issue, many Liberals signed a letter to the Prime Minister stating their support for the use of the notwithstanding clause. However, we all saw which notwithstanding clause they chose to use, the one that states “Notwithstanding what Canadians think, we're only going to do what we're told”.

On March 16 a petition with the names of 50 Liberal members was presented at a press conference. This petition stated their objection to the government's support of a nuclear reactor in Romania. There is just one thing: not one Liberal had the courage to show up at the press conference.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend a Nunavut women's conference will be held in Rankin Inlet.

Women from all over Nunavut will discuss current women's programs, women's representation by and to government, and ways to support and develop women in leadership roles. They will make recommendations for consideration by the Nunavut legislative assembly. I am pleased to be a participant in this important event.

April 1 is fast approaching and I know Nunavut residents are excited about the new public government which will be in place.

I look forward to working with the premier elect, Paul Okalik, his cabinet elect and the new Nunavut legislature on the challenges facing our residents.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly and enthusiastically extend my congratulations today to Catherine Girardin, a young lady of 16, who has brought honour to Quebec, to her culture, and to her language.

Last week she was named top young journalist by the Conseil pédagogique interdisciplinaire du Québec, and awarded their prix du Mérite du français en éducation.

Today, on the occasion of the Journée internationale de la Francophonie, she has been named top young journalist by the Association canadienne de l'éducation de langue française.

On behalf of the Francophonie, on behalf of Quebec, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, and on my own behalf, I again offer Catherine my congratulations and encourage her to continue to strive for excellence, to promote the French language that is so dear to our hearts, and to put her immense talents to the service of the advancement and emancipation of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the Parti Quebecois has run into political contradictions.

This morning we learned that the government of Quebec is refusing to take part in the launching of the Year of the Francophonie in Canada.

In justification of its refusal, it refers to the concept of Quebec as a “historical focal point”. According to the PQ government, “Quebec is a historical focal point of the French language in North America”.

Yet, on April 17, 1996 Lucien Bouchard leapt at the throat of the federal government. Why? Because he wanted to attack this same notion of principal focal point, which our party had raised a few days before.

This is a major contradiction. According to Mr. Bouchard, the focal point concept was just one more proof that renewed federalism is impossible within the context of Quebec's fundamental aspirations.

The Parti Quebecois plan is to hobble Quebeckers and prevent them from developing within Canada.

It took the Liberals more than a year to acknowledge the farm income crisis. Their lack of policy direction in grain transportation has paralyzed reforms. Now their inability to negotiate with their employees has shut down western Canada's grain industry.

Grain farmers are facing one of the worst financial years in decades. Every day of this strike $6 million worth of farmers' grain is not reaching market.

The government was told for years that these workers are essential to Canada's grain industry. It has been told that final offer arbitration is the best way to resolve these disputes. It refuses to listen. Now the grain trains have been stopped one more time.

Farmers are innocent third parties of this labour dispute. They cannot understand why this government is not committed to a course of action to get the grain flowing. Many are wondering if the government even cares.

I acknowledge the wisdom of the speaker in authorizing the emergency debate on this issue tonight.

Mr. Speaker, in the last election Reform said that Canadians want an official opposition that is loyal to Canada.

On the eve of the last Quebec referendum the Reform leader was on the phone with the American ambassador negotiating the breakup of Canada. Last summer the Reform leader told Asian investors that the Canadian economy was on the verge of a crisis. In recent days Reform has criticized independent studies which show Canada as the best place to do business in the world. Not so says Reform. Canada is horrible it says.

Now we learn that the Reform Party has been quietly providing information to the Brazilian government to assist it in a trade dispute with Canada. It should apologize to all Canadians for its disgraceful actions and its attempts to sabotage our economy. I know it is having trouble showing loyalty to its leader these days, but it is high time—

Order. Colleagues, questions about loyalty on one side or the other, I do not know whether they do us any good. We are all Canadian members of parliament. I would ask you, colleagues, since we have so much to talk, perhaps we could steer away from that topic.

Mr. Speaker, linguistic duality is a value deeply rooted in all regions of the country. It is a value fundamental to Canadian unity. 1999 is the Year of the Francophonie in Canada. From sea to sea, we are celebrating the contribution made by millions of French-speaking Canadians to our country.

I am proud that Canada's first francophone games will be held in my riding of Memramcook from August 9 to 22. I congratulate the inhabitants of Memramcook and urge all Canadians to come to the games and pay a visit to the heart of Acadia.

Southeastern New Brunswick will also play host to francophones from around the world at the Sommet international de la Francophonie to be held in Moncton in September.

In this Year of the Francophonie, the NDP hopes that one of the first things the government will do to demonstrate its commitment to francophone communities will be to respect the Official Languages Act.

On RDI this morning, journalist Rosaire L'Italien received only an English copy of the kit announcing the year of the Francophonie. How are we to take this government seriously?

Mr. Speaker, in this week celebrating the French language, I wish to express my pride in my mother tongue, a prestigious vehicle of freedom since the start of the millennium.

Magna Carta, the cornerstone of English democracy, was signed in 1215 on an island in the Thames by a king and barons who spoke French.

French was the language of the 18th century texts enshrining the freedom of nations and of individuals: the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen and, earlier, the immortal works of Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire, and many others.

Quebec demands the right to defend the interests of this noble language at all international forums.

If this right were not absurdly denied by this government, the two founding nations of this country would work together harmoniously for the international defence of the equally prestigious French and English languages.

But that is obviously a pipe dream. Only through sovereignty will we be able to fully exercise our right to defend our own language throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, recently the Reform Party called upon francophone Canadians to cross political and linguistic lines to join the united alternative.

It is clear that most Reform members are too hard-headed to ever drop their anti-French stance.

Last week Reform members said that Canada is not a bilingual country. This is news to me and I suspect it is news to most Canadians across the country.

Now Reformers are complaining, as quoted in the Globe and Mail today, “The country is being run by francophones. You sigh and you whine and you snivel, and you get the money... and if you say anything about it, you're a bigot”. That is what the member for Yellowhead said. That is just rubbish.

Reformers should realize the benefits of being a member of both the Commonwealth and la francophonie. Canada's diversity is its strength, not something that should be wiped out as most Reform members seem to think.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud western Canadian to pay tribute to Canada's francophones on the Year of the Francophonie in Canada.

Yesterday's offensive comments by the member of the Reform Party for Yellowhead further underline the need for Canadians to proudly support our francophone population.

Unlike the Reform Party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada respects the linguistic duality of our country. We understand the need to support and celebrate our participation in any organization that can promote the French language.

I challenge the members and leadership of the Reform Party of Canada to stand and be heard on this issue. If the Leader of the Opposition agrees with the member for Yellowhead that the country is being run by francophones, let him stand and be heard. If he believes that Ottawa has been frenchified, let him stand and be heard.

The Reform Party will never understand the history of this great country because it refuses to accept Canada's linguistic duality. That is also why the Reform Party will never form government.

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, the whole world will celebrate the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Unfortunately, even though institutional racism has become much less prevalent on our planet over the past several decades, it still exists in some areas.

On February 25, B'nai Brith Canada announced that, in 1998, the number of anti-Semitic incidents in Canada had gone up 14%, even though our country is among the most tolerant ones.

If we only take into account cases of harassment, the increase is even greater, at 29%. It is all too easy to find scapegoats, particularly among groups that have historically been subjected to such treatment.

The laws have changed, but the battle has not yet been won. Just think of the aboriginals and other visible minorities.

Mr. Speaker, Canada's standard of living is falling. The government gets richer but Canadians get poorer. According to the industry minister, high taxes and high debt rob each Canadian of $7,000 a year or $28,000—

Mr. Speaker, here in Canada six years ago we inherited a totally desperate situation, a $42 billion deficit.

We have put this country's finances in order and have revived the economy. Today, Canada's productivity is on the rise.

The Leader of the Opposition is using statistics that date back to before the Liberals were in government, but the reality is that 1.6 million jobs have been created since we took office. Our budget is a balanced one and we have the lowest interest rates that there has been for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, what is so embarrassing for the Prime Minister is that while this decline in the standard of living started years ago, it has become worse under his administration. It was falling in 1987, but according to the International Institute for Management Development our overall standard of living was also falling in 1997.

How can the Prime Minister deny the fact that under his policies the gap between the standard of living of Canadians and that of Americans has become $7,000 per person and growing?

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to hear a serious topic like the issue of Canada's productivity challenge distorted by the Leader of the Opposition in this way.

I wish he would read the speech. I wish he would quote a few other parts of it. For example, the federal deficit stood at $42 billion in 1993 and now it is the first budgetary surplus in 28 years. Our inflation rate has been the lowest in more than a generation. In 1998, 453,000 jobs were created. Canada experienced a bounce back in productivity in 1997. In 1994 we ranked twentieth in the world economic forum's competitiveness rankings and now we rank fifth.

It looks like somebody got to the industry minister, Mr. Speaker. I do not need to quote from the industry minister's speech. I can quote from the government's own Standing Committee on Finance.

In December it acknowledged our falling standard of living and said it was an indication of a fundamental weakness in our system. We agree. Seven thousand dollars a year may be nothing to the Prime Minister, but it buys a lot of groceries and clothes for ordinary Canadians.

Why can the Prime Minister not see that his high debt, high tax policies are hurting Canadians and hurting them bad?

Mr. Speaker, in the bizarre, simplistic world in which members of the Reform Party live things are never complicated. I understand that. In this case they need to understand that meeting the Canadian productivity challenge is a long term investment. It means action on the part of government, action like bringing down the deficit, action like bringing down the debt, action like keeping interest rates low, action like giving confidence to our international investors.

At the same time it requires the private sector to invest. It requires the private sector to invest in research and development and in labour market training. These are the components of productivity. That is where success lies for Canada.

Oh, to be so blessed with such complexity, Mr. Speaker. Let me quote from the Minister of Industry's speech last month. He said “Our per capita income would have been $7,000 a year higher. For a family of four, this is a $28,000 shortfall”.

I will give him a few seconds to find that part in his speech because I am sure he would like to refer to it. I believe the Minister of Industry was telling the truth in that report, and he knows it. Does the Prime Minister also think he was?